Ippc6 bpp

BENCHMARKING PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Global Indicators Group, Development EconomicsInternational Public Procurement Conference IPP6, August 15th

Sophie Pouget

www.enterprisesurveys.org

Introduction (1): A new WB initiative

BACKGROUND

� Need for more analytical work to better identify shortcomings in the public

procurement legal framework

INITIATIVE LAUNCHED IN 2013

� Initial demand came from the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group

� A WBG initiative started in 2013 to develop global indicators on public

procurement legal systems and related practices


Introduction (2): Objectives

OBJECTIVES

� It assesses transparency, accountability, and efficiency in public procurement

systems through actionable information tools

� Conduct a yearly standardized assessment across economies

ANGLE OF ANALYSIS

� Encourage a peer-to-peer learning exercise among governments

� Facilitate policy dialogue and stimulate reforms

Introduction (3): A tool used by various stakeholders for multiple purposes

www.enterprisesurveys.org Global Indicators Group

BPP

Multilateral Development

Banks

Academics

and

Research Community

Policymakers

and

Government Agencies

Private Sector

(notably small and medium enterprises)

Introduction (4): An objective measurement of public procurement systems and a strong motivator for reform

www.enterprisesurveys.org Global Indicators Group

At a global levelAccess to actionable, objective data

Good practices identified through the

benchmarking exercise can be easily

replicated

Regional and global cooperation

At a national levelIdentify areas of improvement

Motivate reforms through country

benchmarking

Promotes a critical factor of a

country’s competitiveness


Methodology of the Benchmarking Public Procurement initiative (1)

� Builds on the World Bank Group Doing Business program :

� Used as guide for reforms in 189 countries in the world

� Close to 2000 reforms generated since the project’s inception in 2003

� Similar methodological approach undertaken with the BPP initiative:

� 11 countries covered for the pilot phase in the Fall 2013 (Afghanistan, Chile, Ghana, Jordan,

Mexico, the Russian Federation , Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda and the United States)

� 84 countries to be covered in the Fall 2014 and 189 countries to be covered in the future

Methodology

Indicators covering 4 thematic areas

Legal indicators(de jure indicators):

All public procurement regulations, other legal

texts of general application, judicial decisions and administrative rulings

Time and motion indicators

(de facto indicators):

Procedure

Time

Cost

More than 200 individual datapoints for each country

Respondents include:- Public procurement lawyers - Accounting and consulting firms - Public procurement authorities (government officials) - Private sector suppliers - Law professors

Standardized yearly

assessment of the

regulations and

procedures, thus

recording each reform

and change of practice.

ABCMethodology (2): 4 set of indicators


Methodology (3): the Expert Consultative Group

.

• Public Sector Governance Unit• Operations Risk Management Department (OPSOR)• Regional Vice-Presidencies for Africa; Eastern Europe and Central Asia and East Asia and the Pacific Regions; •Investment Climate Department (FIAS)•Independent Evaluation Group (IEG)•Global Manufacturing and Services Department (in IFC)

Internal experts

• Public procurement law academics at the George Washington University Law School• Leading private sector companies (e.g. GE) to learn more about their experience dealing with public procurement processes• International organizations such as EBRD; EU; OECD and UNCITRAL.

External experts

An extensive consultation was organized with a roster of public procurement experts

over 9 months in order to refine the methodology, the thematic coverage and the final

objectives of the initiative.

Methodology (4): Limitations

Methodological limitations Interpretation of data

BPP is not a survey of company or suppliers’

perceptions.

Though they aim to measure the typical

experience of a company involved in public

tender, the BPP indicators are not

representative of all tenders.

BPP data on the efficiency of administrative

processes are specific to the country’s largest

business city and not necessarily

representative of common practices in other

cities in each economy (not a sub-national

study).

For the pilot year, BPP’s thematic coverage

is limited to 4 areas and does not provide

comprehensive measures of countries’ legal

and regulatory frameworks for public

procurement.

BPP does not measure the full range of

factors, policies and institutions that affect

the public procurement systems in an

economy or its national competitiveness.

The indicators are based on hypothetical

case study assumptions which allow for

global comparison but limit the interpretation

of the data to one scenario.

Thematic coverage

Accessibility of public

procurement

regulations

Bidding for a public

procurement tender

Filing a complaint

Accountability and

oversight

mechanisms

� Measures the ease of bidding for a procurement tender (time and motion indicators)

� Analyzes the process to challenge a public procurement tender through a complaint system (time and motion indicators)

� Assesses oversight mechanisms, reporting capacities and the extent of procuring official’s accountability (legal indicators)

� Evaluates the accessibility and clarity of public procurement regulations (legal indicators)

1. Accessibility of public procurement regulations

Accessibility of public procurement regulations assesses the ease of access to

public procurement regulations and the transparency of the procurement

process.

- Questions cover both the pre-tendering and tendering phases;

- Questions also cover both:

- accessibility of procurement-related information for the public (for

instance, accessibility of the procurement plan);

- and accessibility of information on the bidding process to the bidders

(and in particular: the legal requirement for publication of

procurement opportunities, as well as criteria for evaluation and bid

results).

On accessibility of public procurement regulations

� The type of media used to advertise tender notices vary significantlyfrom one country to another:

� In Chile: only 1 channel is required (the e-procurement platform);

� In Afghanistan: 4 channels are required.

� The content of the tender notice also vary significantly acrosscountries:

� In Jordan: only 6 pieces of information are required in the tendernotice (and the rest is left to the discretion of the procuring entity);

� In Turkey: 12 pieces of information (including, for instance,information on the commencement and completion dates for thesubject matter of the procurement).


� Access to the evaluation criteria and method of assessment is key for bidders to

formulate the best offer possible and reinforce their trust that bids will be evaluated on

merits.

� Rules on the communication of the evaluation criteria & method of assessment

vary significantly from one country to the other.

2. Bidding for a public procurement tender

Bidding for a public procurement tender assesses the ease of bidding for a

procurement tender.

Legal indicators assess specific steps of the bidding process :

- In the pre-tendering phase:- consultation with the

private sector;- potential restrictions.

- In the tendering phase: - ease of obtaining

information and accessing the tender notice;

- possibility to request changes;

- ease of the bid submission.

The topic assesses the procedure, time and cost related to:

- Submitting a question to the procuring entity;

- Obtaining the tender documents from the procuring entity;

- Requesting changes to technical specifications;

- Submitting a bid;- Obtaining feedback on the

reasons why a bidder did not qualify or win a tender.

Pre-tendering phase:

� In practice, the consultation with the private sector happens in person, and

most of the time informally.

� Only four surveyed countries regulate the possibility for companies involved

in the consultation phase to bid for the particular procurement tender that is the

product of such consultation.

� In Turkey and Mexico, companies already been consulted for the needs

assessment phase are not allowed to bid.

� In the United States and Afghanistan, there is a similar interdiction but the

laws allow for more flexibility in certain circumstances.

� In other surveyed countries, general legal provisions on conflict of interest

are relevant.

On bidding for a public procurement tender


Tendering phase: Information on Public Procurement Opportunities:

� Cost to access tender documents:

� Bidders can access the tender documents for free, such as in Chile and

Sweden where free access to tender documents is guaranteed.

� Otherwise, bidders access the tender documents for a particular fee

requested by the procuring entity.

� In practice, the amount does not differ significantly from one country to

another and is not prohibitive enough to prevent companies from

bidding.

� Time to access tender documents:

� In four surveyed countries, the applicable public procurement law or

regulation does not specify a time limit within which the procuring entity

must provide the tender documents to potential bidders.

� This creates some uncertainty for bidders as to when they will have

access to the tender documents.

3. Filing a complaint

Filing a complaint measures the process to challenge a public procurement

tender through a complaint system.

Legal indicators assessing the quality of complaint mechanism:

- Complaints filed before the conclusion of the procurement contract (e.g. methods; review bodies ; suspension of the procurement process)

- Complaints filed to challenge the award of the contract

- Complaints filed in case of a potential conflict of interest

Topic also assesses the procedures, time and cost related to:

- Notification of complaint to the procuring entity;

- Requirement to show standing;

- Process to file a complaint before the first-tier review body

- Process to appeal the decision before the second-tier review body

- Process to challenge the award of the contract

- In case of conflict of interest, removal of public official from the tender panel

On filing a complaint

Time Limit for the First-Tier Review Body to Render a Decision:


Range of Remedies Awarded to Suppliers:

4. Accountability and Oversight Mechanisms

Accountability and Oversight Mechanisms assesses oversight mechanisms,

reporting capacities and the extent of procuring official’s accountability.

- General reporting obligations within local government entities:

- whether public officials are required to report suspicions of fraud,

misconduct or maladministration;

- how public officials can report misconduct and if it can be done

anonymously.

- General recording obligations (through notably the protection of files on

record through limited access, and regular and specific updates);

- Internal control and management procedures and the monitoring

performance of the internal control system (for instance, through internal

audits on the internal control system’s performance);

- Routine external control and ad hoc external controls.

On accountability and oversight mechanisms

� Reporting misconduct:

� In a majority of countries: public officials cannot report misconduct anonymously.

� In Jordan, Sweden and the United States: it is possible to report misconduct anonymously without any restriction.

� In Uganda: if a public official reports misconduct anonymously, he cannot benefit from the protection of the Whistleblowers Act of 2010.


� Recording obligations:

Conclusion: Next steps

� On the basis of the data collected in 2013, an analytical report is currently being finalized.

� The project’s approach is being refined and the indicators and their methodology will be reassessed accordingly through consultation with the Experts Consultative Group.

� Geographical scale up to 84 countries for the Fall 2014.

rru.worldbank.org/bpphttp://doingbusiness.org/about-us/global-indicators

Email: [email protected]

Thank you!

Annex


� Publication of the contract award is widely considered as the basis of

transparent procurement systems.

� The requirements regarding publication of the contract award vary significantly

from one country to the other:


� Allowing bidders to use fast and reliable ways of communication, such as

emails and e-procurement portals, is a way to improve considerably the

transparency and efficiency of the procurement process.


� In a lot of countries, the issue of suspension of the procurement process during the review of a complaint is left to the discretion of the reviewing body, and the law is vague on the issue. It may depend on the circumstances or left at the discretion of the reviewing body, therefore, the suspension is unpredictable to the protesting company.

� Although there is a statutory time limit in some of the countries for the review body to issue a decision, often this limit is not respected and therefore the period of review is unpredictable.


� Routine external controls:


� None of the countries surveyed have a detailed regulatory framework on internal controls:

� In six surveyed countries (Afghanistan, Chile, Mexico, Thailand, Uganda

and the United States), internal controls should to be conducted throughout

the procurement process.

� However, the legal framework does not specify their frequency.

� Very often, in practice, internal controls are conducted only during the

post-tendering phase, for the payment and delivery phase.

� Even if internal controls are usually recorded, this depends of the practice of

each procuring entity as, very often, public procurement laws are silent on this

aspect.